posted on May 18, 2002 07:03:14 AM new
I'm going to go see it this morning. Bought the tickets from Fandango.com in advance and I've already got them in hand. I'll let ya know what I think later on. Are you planning on seeing it as well?
posted on May 18, 2002 10:28:03 AM new
My son saw it last night and LOVED it! He said the special effects are really great. And Natalie somethingorother was a BABE? Who's Natalie somethingorother?
On the other hand, somebody else told me that the first half was really slow. I lost interest in the Star Wars saga after Empire Strikes Back.
posted on May 18, 2002 03:42:35 PM new
It was EXCELLANT!
The first half was not slow. it was slow-ER than the first half, but a film with all action and no plot would have been boring.
This episode was not sickeningly sweet or childishly stupid like Episode I (the last Star Wars film release) was. It was a very serious film that did much in the way of plot developement and chacter developement, making the whole story much more enjoyable. The chase scenes are shorter than before, which is good, because they get boring after a while. There was a lot more action in this film than any of the others. The cinematography was terrific without overshadowing the story.
Of the many things that I liked about this film, was that George Lucas was doing more than just making everything look REAL and to look LARGE. This time, he added DEPTH and HEIGHT to the special effects in ways that he did not previously do. However, if you are expecting dramatic breakthroughs in computer animation and the like: forget it. What there is in the film is terrific as is.
I think that this film, Episode II will do as well as the first Start Wars film did, Episode III; that is, talking about the NUMBER of ticket sales, not the total dollar amount which is misleading.
Boys vs. girls film? I'd say that women will enjoy it, since the main theme is about emotions and desire. But it is definetly a Guy film from the get-go. Kids will like it, as well as old folks. Go see it and enjoy a film that you'll think about a lot later. It was fun!
posted on May 18, 2002 03:53:47 PM new
gravid, Start Wars and Star Trek tv series is not sci-fi. Steven Speilberg is about to have another film disaster on his hands -- another sci-fi with Tom Cruise in it tthis summer. He, too, doesn't know what sci-fi is anymore (if he ever did).
That's the thing about tv and film makers: few of them actually know what science fiction is and how to produce sci-fi stories. There's the Ancient Producers, who think that sci-fi is about Flash Gordon, space ships and laser pistols blazing away from space-suited strongman hero types. The Old Crowd of producers, who think that 1950's low-budget giant monster/horror/insects are what sci-fi is all about. The more recent crop of filmmakers thinks that it's all special effects. TV producers are no better, where they STILL want "Wagon Train" type sci-fi shows, where the heros show up at a different planet each week and solve local problems with their down-home, good, old-fashioned, common-sense and Wise Ways. All of that is CRAP! (see the new UPN show Enterprise. It's Voyager warmed over, which was Wagon Train warmed over).
What IS Science Fiction? Well, it still is a big genre'. The best explantion that I've seen so far is that Science Fiction is Sociology. You take some science or group of sciences, move time forward to see how it would change our society, then you get one or more main characters to interact with that changed society; explain it, you know? The character's struggles and adventures are what makes it sci-fi. From the main character, we get to see how life would or could be like if only that science existed.
A great example of this is the movie Dark City or 12 Monkeys. Or, if you can stand to watch a true oldie: Metropolis. If you want to see two great sci-fi films of recent make, rent those.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on May 18, 2002 03:55 PM ]
posted on May 18, 2002 06:41:23 PM new
I'm looking forward to seeing it in digital (San Jose) once the crowds die down. I'm sorry there have been so many negative reviews, including one in the SF Chronicle which also blasted Episode I and called Annakin an "obnoxious brat." Oh, well. Look, either you "get" Star Wars or you don't.
posted on May 18, 2002 07:29:15 PM new
I know. I have seen reviews blasting it because the physics are wrong and because it is not Shakespeare. Even one unhappy that the digital version is too sharp and colorful. That reviewer should have watched it with a stocking over his head.
I am real interested in seeing the digital version here because I remember reading some research by the people who were developing HD TV that showed that at a certain number of pixels and angle of view the scene became so real to the viewer that the emotional response they were looking for with repiration rates - blood pressure - etc. hit a threshold were it became the same as reality. They were even discussing the legal problem of really being able to scare someone to death. Remember movies that tried to convince you they were that scary in their ads?
posted on May 18, 2002 07:41:11 PM new
gravid, I recall reading about the fact that movies are still 24 frames per second (fps). One innovator made a camera to go at 60fps and noticed how REAL it seemed. He tried it before a test audience and their reaction was what you described. The human mind does not perceive individual frames after 60 per second, it seems. When a batter swinging a bat and hitting a ball is shot at 24fps, the swing and the ball going is blurred. But at 60fps, the swing and the ball are clear and detailed. The objection is that this process uses nearly 2-1/2 times the film and that audiences might be scared to death. I guess we need that bit of low quality to tell us its not real.
posted on May 19, 2002 11:40:17 AM new
I finally went and saw Star Wars EII. My Opinion, Spiderman was much better. All the Star Wars movies written and produced lately have all been only for rabid Stars Wars fans only. Halfway through I realized what always happens next...someone is going to pull a light sabre a hit something. And then the final battle scene(which seemed basically to be filler for what seemed like FOREVER!), all the blaster fire and random destruction anybody who has camped out at the theatre for months could ask for. Unless you have been living under a rock for 5 years could have seen that coming.
Few interesting points.
Yoda is cooler than I ever thought he was, great actor too!
Jar Jar Binks deserves to be the most hated Star Wars character...
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
[ edited by mlecher on May 19, 2002 11:43 AM ]
posted on May 21, 2002 11:01:53 AM new
hey, in my youth it was explained to me that a movie or novel was considered Sci-Fi if it had anything in it that wasn't in existence today. Flying vehicles, ability to become invisible, ray guns, etc. consititutes sci-fi, science based fiction. And going forward in time or backward in time isn't supposed to matter either.
And the word genre wasn't even used then.
Why do some people have to pick things apart instead of just joining in the conversation.
sheesh!
posted on May 21, 2002 12:25:26 PM new
Sorry - not trying to be negative. Notice I am going to go see it. I just am a big science fiction fan but usually I can't get into fantasy.
Science Fiction is usually defined by reality. The things presented are POSSIBLE.
That still allows quite a bit! But it excludes magic and mythology for which there is no physical explaination.
I have lot more interest in what may actually be in the future than a complete fictional world that nobody thinks will ever exist like Alice in Wonderland.
posted on May 21, 2002 03:19:24 PM new
If you don't want to stand in line and don't mind a small screen, you can download Attack Of The Clones on Kazaa. Spiderman is there too.
posted on May 21, 2002 05:48:06 PM new
That's a good clarification, gravid.
REAMOND, Spiderman is over-hyped. Seeing it on the Small screen is just fine. But Star Wars Episode II is a different matter altogether! Don't miss the opportunity to get the most out of what George Lucas can offer when he doesn't have his head up his ass.
posted on May 21, 2002 10:37:06 PM new
Bonilar where have you been star trek was wagon train now it HOOTERS Skin Tight BARBIE Dolls who will flaunt every curve god gave them for a part in the film and the producers bed. Now Ripley In Aliens 2 or 4 What a babe. Then there's jerry Ryan I'd Like to give her an implant.
posted on May 21, 2002 10:37:07 PM new
Bonilar where have you been star trek was wagon train now it HOOTERS Skin Tight BARBIE Dolls who will flaunt every curve god gave them for a part in the film and the producers bed. Now Ripley In Aliens 2 or 4 What a babe. Then there's jerry Ryan I'd Like to give her an implant.
posted on May 22, 2002 07:25:36 AM new
Star Wars IV was the first release, III hasn't been released yet.
Yoda in EII is all CGI. No actor.
We already pretty much know what is going to happen in Star Wars because we seen the later episodes first and now we're back at the beginning. I mean we know that all the characters escape the arena because Amidala has to birth Luke and Leia, Anakin will be the father of L & L and D.V. and Obi Wan is alive and well in E IV The New Hope.
Star Wars I had children for the main characters. Natalie Portman was supposed to be a child queen. I've thought all of the Star Wars episodes were very good. Jar Jar Binks reminds me of Barney from Andy Griffith, but not all of the Star Wars characters could be blessed with brains I suppose.
Star Wars III comes out in 3 years. I can't wait to see it. But "The Attack of the Clones" doesn't seem to be a proper title since in this movie the Clones came to the Jedi's rescue.
After III comes out they're supposed to have a day in selected cities where they play all 6 in order from E I in order, back to back. I want to see that.
